Fan fiction and public critique (aka, deja vu)

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Meta
Title: Fan fiction and public critique (aka, deja vu)
Creator: destina
Date(s): August 23, 2005
Medium: LiveJournal post
Fandom:
Topic:
External Links: Fan fiction and public critique (aka, deja vu), Archived version by destina
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Fan fiction and public critique (aka, deja vu) is a 2005 essay by destina.

"This is a cyclical discussion, as most discussions in fandom are, and the last time I posted about it in August 2003, the very same issues were being discussed. Same stuff, different day. So I'm going to post a somewhat revised version of my previous comments. It saves time. Please note that these comments are not specific to the issues swirling around TCB. I'm just speaking in general terms."

The post has 32 comments.

For additional context, see Timeline of Concrit & Feedback Meta.

Some Topics Discussed

Excerpts from the Essay

1. It doesn't matter at all what you intended to convey with your story, or how well you think you wrote it, because in the end you cannot control the interpretation each individual reader will make of your efforts. A writer's perception of her own story is not objective; you may think you've done a bang-up job, but in reality, many readers may think your story sucks. It's also possible you have written a particular story to the best of your ability, but your abilities may still be catching up with your imagination. Trying to defend a story on the basis of 'but you've missed the point!' isn't useful. It's also possible the reader really did completely miss the point. It's not the first time; it won't be the last.

2. No one has to ask your permission to review, critique, or discuss your story. Not even to be polite. When you post your work to any public forum, discussion happens. That's the nature of the beast, and you can't control it.

3. No one has to ask your permission to quote your story for the purposes of critique or review, either, as long as they adhere to certain guidelines. If the NY Times doesn't have to ask Stephen King, then Mary Sue Fan doesn't have to ask you.

4. Reviews and story discussion are not about the writer. They are not for the writer. They are not feedback. They are not designed to praise the writer, or encourage her, or make her a better writer. They serve many other purposes - entertainment, advertisement, education, shared interaction - none of which have anything to do with the writer. Rather, they are for the readers, who sometimes find it fun and interesting to talk about stories. This may surprise people who loathe and are made uncomfortable by story discussion, but different strokes and all that.

5. Stop personalizing. People are talking about your story, whether you want them to or not. They do it in email, on lists, on message boards, on LJ, and on websites. Somewhere, someone really hates your beautiful creation. I guarantee it. They probably won't tell you, because they are kind and polite. The only thing that distinguishes public discussion from private discussion of your work is the forum. A merciless critique isn't the final word on your story, either. Sometimes, the reviewer has his or her head up their ass. It's all very subjective.

6. We all have our own particular point of view; quoting someone else's love for your story isn't going to convert the reviewer into your biggest fan. Try to keep in mind that people are quicker to write with praise than with criticism, largely because feedback is viewed as a medium for expression of happiness and praise. Also, experience teaches that many writers are indeed thin-skinned folk who don't particularly want to hear what readers dislike about their stories.

7. Your interpretation of the characters is not the Ultimate Understanding. People will read your story; some of them will not like your interpretation. That doesn't mean they read it 'wrong' or don't understand the characters.

8. If your sole objection to public critique is that it's 'mean' or doesn't provide you with an egoboo, you are crying into the wilderness.

9. Silence on the part of the writer is golden. It doesn't matter what you intended. Reader reaction to/interpretation of the text, and the text itself, trump your intentions.

10. What you consider to be 'constructive crit' may in fact be glowing praise disguised as crit. What someone else considers 'contructive crit' may be a 20-page critical essay dismantling your story and explaining why it doesn't work, why the foundations are rotten, and giving you literary perspective. Roll with it.

11. Stop conflating yourself with your story. A negative opinion of your story is not a personal attack upon you -- a true ad hominem attack is a flame, along the lines of 'you suck!' Not at all the same thing as 'your story sucks', although for many writers, it's difficult to distinguish between the two. There is a difference. It's unfortunate that some folks can't seem to help themselves, and must revert to discussing the writer, and her motives, and her intentions, and so forth; story discussion really should just be about the story. Nevertheless, try to keep in mind that you are not your story.

12. Honest opinions are worth their weight in gold to someone who actually wants to improve her writing. You may not be one of those people. If not, see #4. However, for a writer to reach a point where she can see the value of information she receives in a critique or discussion, she will have to do the following things:

- Learn to recognize an agenda when you see one. Reviewers do have them. And sometimes, reviewers are Evil and Bad. This, however, doesn't mean their point of view is entirely wrong. - Learn the difference between a blunt, tactless comment and a flame (personal attack). - Pick through the rubble of your ego and salvage the part of you that wants to continue writing, then dust it off. The bruises will fade. It won't take as long as you think. Your new, thicker skin will help prevent future bruises. - Sift through comments in a critique and take away the things that are of value, and discard the rest. - Let it go. Clinging to bitterness about what you perceive as unfair treatment only ruins your enjoyment of fandom, and benefits no one.

I'm going to add a condensed version of what I said to Koi, in comments to her post. Sometimes, I just want to talk about a story. I don't want to have to back up my examples with the text, I don't want to go in-depth and provide justification as if we were engaging in true analysis/critique. Discussion is not necessarily literary critique, and it doesn't need to be. The idea of critique and analysis and whatnot is all fine and good, but that's not why I want to talk about stories with other readers in general terms. Shared discussion is a facet of my love for the stories and the fandom, and I sometimes just want to say (for example) -- I liked this story, but this one thing over here wasn't working for me. And then people respond, and say -- well, it worked for me, and here's why. Sometimes their comments help me see the story in a new way. Sometimes not. The discussion itself is what's enjoyable for me; it's not about slamming a story, or making the writer uncomfortable.

The fannish baggage that is attached to the very idea of story discussion, like an extra ten lengths of Marley's ponderous chain, is unfortunate.

Some Comments to the Essay

bethbethbeth: The only thing I'd question is #10, in particular: " Don't try to tell people their way of doing it is 'wrong'" because if a reviewer has the right to say that a drabble or a novel or a narrative experiment with the story written backwards or all-dialogue fic or second person fic or whatever that's posted in public doesn't work (or sucks or is "wrong"), then surely the author or her friends or her readers or whomever has the same right to respond to public critique. Mind you, I think that an author getting involved in a debate about their story on the "You're stupid if you couldn't see I meant..." level is kind of ridiculous, but everybody has the same right to discuss *anything* that's been posted in public

destina (original poster): You know, I see your point. I went back and took that sentence out to avoid confusion. What I mean by it has nothing to do with the writer participating in or responding to critique; it has to do with telling people the way they discuss text is 'wrong' or 'incorrect'. But I see how it could be read the way you read it. Better to remove it. *g*

cofax7: Somewhere, someone really hates your beautiful creation. I guarantee it.

I hate you! ::sobs and runs away, clinging to her delicate snowflake::

But seriously, excellent post. All of this is true. In a better world, we all would be able to just deal.

It also does seem as if people think public discussion is the same thing as concrit, and it's not. It's not for the writer, although she may learn something from it. I'm actually more likely to learn from public review of other people's work than my own, since I'm not defensive about their stories.

[snipped]

I'm really on the fence on this whole thing, as you may have gathered.

-- I love love love story discussion. -- I hate to see people get their feelings hurt. -- I think the fanfic community is a fantastic place for creativity. -- I think the fanfic community has an unparalleled ability to eat its young and spit out the bones. -- I love to be able to be critical. -- I know that not everyone relishes a good meaty discussion the same way I do. -- I know that some people take advantage of any opportunity to grind their own axes. -- I know I have some axes of my own.

Up, down, up, down, up, down. ::is dizzy::

[snipped]

I suspect that if we were able to talk about a story as if every thing in it were intentional, rather than challenging the author's choices, we might find some value in that. But because no piece of fic is completely unique, and everything comes loaded with the readers' awareness of different interpretations of each character and canon as a whole, it's very hard for people to do that. Especially when the author is perceived as a peer, rather than some far-away Writer.

::sigh::

samdonne:

I'm not going to comment on the things I agree with, for the sake of economy, only the things I don't.

1. When you post your work to any public forum, discussion happens. That's the nature of the beast, and you can't control it.

Precisely. Fanfic-discussion communities are public forums, too. If readers post in there, they shouldn't be surprised if someone, and that includes the writer, posts back. As I said on Eli's LJ, every action provokes an equal reaction. My problem with TCB is that it claims to be a public forum, but it wants to exist in a bubble, behind glass doors, within safe regimented borders (because apparently a writer's feelings are worth squat, but a reader's feelings should be wrapped in soft cotton) deciding who is allowed and who isn't allowed to have a reaction to the things that are posted there. As you have pointed out yourself, that's not how fandom works.

2. Silence is golden. The more mature thing to do when your story is publicly discussed is to be silent.

Yeah? Uh, why? I see this everywhere, but I didn't get the memo. Analysis of authorial intent used to be in fashion, now it isn't, but likely some day it will be again, but as you said, academic discourse is not the only one of worth. So why should I subscribe to some postmodernist diktat I don't agree with? It presumes that nothing constructive or worthwhile can come out of the author interacting with the readership on that level. And that's just bloody sad, and in my experience, untrue. I'm willing to take the good with the bad so that I don't lose that give-and-take.

Readers should have absolute freedom of speech, but writers' should be curtailed by some remote definition of maturity? What is this? Pro-reader affirmative action? No. I don't see from where this claim derives its legitimacy.

Sometimes, I just want to talk about a story. I don't want to have to back up my examples with the text, I don't want to go in-depth and provide justification as if we were engaging in true analysis/critique.

Which is all well and good. Sometimes writers just want to talk back.

TCB wants to drag fanfic discussion out of the "ghetto" of personal LJs and locked posts. Well, there you are. You want the fanfic experience to be public and interactive, you can't be surprised when you get the whole interactive experience of fandom, and that includes the authors.

You don't get to decide who your comments are intended for, much as I don't get to decide who reads my work. You can't pick and choose what you want to deal with and what you don't, what reaction your public discussion of fanfic should garner and what it shouldn't, much like the writer cannot pick and choose what interpretation will apply to her story and which one won't. It's the height of hypocrisy to proclaim that readers have the right to express themselves in a public forum, but writers should remain stoically quiet or react on their own LJ, preferably in locked posts where they can't cause a kerfuffle and you don't have to deal.

Once a story is out there, it's fair game, isn't it? Well, it's the same for public crit. TCB doesn't acknowledge that.

destina (original poster): Your comments are geared much more toward TCB than mine are. I'm talking generally, about story discussion; you are speaking specifically about TCB. I understand all those specific issues, but I'm not really trying to justify the rules or expectations on TCB. Mostly, I'm just saying to fandom at large -- discussion happens, whether there or elsewhere.

I don't disagree with you about the writer having a say on TCB. I don't maintain the community, however. I think I would very much have liked to see a post -- one post, not a thousand responses to comments -- from the writer after the discussion winds down, making response to various things that were mentioned, and maybe talking about process, etc. I actually *am* interested in the writing process, and in how writers arrive at various places in their writing that I can't quite follow.

What I *don't* enjoy is when the writer gets into the middle of a discussion and begins to refute opinions. It rarely goes well, because the writer's motives in entering the discussion are often not about participating *in* the discussion, but instead about refuting opinions and defending their story. Readers discussing a story with one another is often a very different animal than readers discussing a story with the writer. The tone of the discussion shifts, and the discussion becomes all about the writer and their intentions, rather than being about reader response and/or the story itself. This is why I've come to prefer that writers stay out of it, and why I personally think it's the more mature response. YMMV, as it obviously does.

kyuuketsukirui: Here from metafandom.

That's how hp_fictalk is set up, actually. Authors can respond, but must wait 24 hours after the initial post, and it's preferred that they post their comments in a separate post rather than respond directly to the comments.

I just started fanfic_chat, a mutli-fandom discussion comm, and I didn't put any limits on author interaction except that I will not hesitate to give a smackdown to any author who comes in and whines or tries to say people "just don't get it". I do think that the author is just as capable as another reader of pointing to something and saying "what about this sentence here?" and supporting their position based both on the text of their story and on canon.

I don't think that the author should necessarily be silent. Both as a reader and as a writer, I would rather the writer was not arbitrarily excluded from discussion. The problem is that a great many authors cannot deal with discussion in a mature fashion (even published authors; witness Anne Rice's rants, or Robin Hobb going off on how fanfic is horrible because it twists the author's intent. I don't think she'd be happy reading discussion of her books and finding that the readers don't necessarily come away with what she meant them to, regardless of whether they write fic or not). But some are, and they should be given a chance.

samdonne: I don't know about insightful, but the inconsistencies of a discourse that claims itself free from the hegemony of academic criticism, yet relies so blatantly on intellectual, modern academic concepts such as 'the death of the author', without challenging them even a little, has been bothering me a while.

So has a certain conception of community, public sphere, and behavior within that space. Earlier I saw someone on friendsfriends arguing that TCB was the mod's "own world" and if you didn't want to live in it and follow its rules you only had to stay away and "go home". I thought: what a baffling approach to community participation. If a political party is created in the country (community, society, neighborhood) of which I am a citizen, whose representation is clearly not intended for me, do I not have a right, even though I have no intention of joining said party, to discuss its platform, its activities, the impact it is having on my community? (Because, by its very existence, this association of private citizens is having an impact, large or small, whether I'm looking at it or not.) And if I believe that said impact is detrimental to my community, do I not have a right to speak up?

TCB's discussions do not take place in its mod's living room. They take place in the public space that is fandom. Much as my story becomes public property in the wider sense once it is posted, so does TCB becomes the legitimate concern of all the members of the community once it becomes an actor within that community -- because the existence of TCB impacts the community and therefore me, whether I ever set foot in there or not. It's elementary system analysis. It's ripples in a pond.

I've tended to stay out of these fandom-wide debates, but this one, it seems, hit something close to home.

isilya: TCB's discussions do not take place in its mod's living room. They take place in the public space that is fandom.

Right, and I think it is this claiming of a public space without also shouldering the responsibilities of a public enterprise that is one of the things that bother me so much. There is a reason that most controversial critique is done behind closed doors, in AIM and email, and trying to force legitimacy of this style of critique in a public forum brings with it many attendant problems.

This would all be a non-issue if TCB was locked, and probably even if it were a mailing list. But the fact is that it is public, it is in the community space, and therefore the community is *involved* and *affected*. So the community has the right to examine, discuss, dissect and criticise TCB.

malic kenafin: I agree with almost everything that you said.

But I disagree greatly with you on the following:

"4. Reviews and story discussion are not about the writer. They are not for the writer. They are not feedback. They are not designed to praise the writer, or encourage her, or make her a better writer. ...."

To me this makes no sense. The idea of any disccusion on one's writen word, good or bad, praising or critical, should very well be feedback. The idea of sharing one's work to strangers is to become a better writer. A good writer will take what has been said, good or bad, and use that the next time they write. If someone says "This part of the story really didn't fit in right and I couldn't understand what the purpose of it was." Then the next time the author sits down to write they should be thinking...."How can I make it easier for people to uderstand why I want this there."

One should grow as a writer with every bit of feedback and every bit of discussion about their work. The purpose of allowing one's work to be discussed is to become a better writer. To find out what parts are weak and what parts are strong. To determine what people in general like and what people dislike. And then to incorporate those new found things into their next work. Authors who sell millions of copies of books each year certainly did not discourage any type of disccusion on their writings before they became well circulated authors (or even after for that matter.)

Even if your intention as the reader is simply that you just felt the need to voice what was in your mind and to hear what others think. The author should still and should always take that into consideration, weigh the merit of what was said along with what others said, deterime if they should or should not try to improve on what was said based on that merit and how they might do so, and then move on.

Now granted some people just are not good at taking any negative discussion on their body of work. But that is their problem. That is not the problem of the reader. And you can be assured that if they want to become one of those authors who sells millions of copies of books a year that they wont be getting there anytime soon so long as they continue to take any negative comments poorly and refuse to even acknoledge that their work may need some fine tuning. And if they don't want to become a published writer, and are poor at taking negative comments, then they should either ignore what they do not like, or consider only sharing their work with their close friends and not just anyone.

cofax7: The idea of sharing one's work to strangers is to become a better writer.

Not to speak for Des, but I would disagree with this strongly; many people share their work for other reasons than that. Many people have no interest in becoming better writers, or think that reader response isn't what they need to hear to improve their writing, or honestly don't care what the reader response is, they just want to write.

And you can be assured that if they want to become one of those authors who sells millions of copies of books a year that they wont be getting there anytime soon so long as they continue to take any negative comments poorly and refuse to even acknoledge that their work may need some fine tuning.

You have seen Anne Rice's response to reader criticism, haven't you?

I don't disagree that improving one's writing is a worthy end; but it is far from the only reason people put their work out their to be read. And making that kind of assumption about why people write fic, and why they post it, is the sort of thing I've seen start arguments over and over and over.

This is not to say that people shouldn't expect their work to be discussed; but not all of us write for the same reason, and it's vital that we remember this.

malic kenafin: If the writer is not a part of it then they would never know what was said and therefore everything being discussed right now would be a non-issue.

But since the writer does have the ability to read these comments, good or bad, then yes they ARE a part of it. It doesn't matter if you want then to be or not.

But if there are certain writes who seem to always have issues with any negative comments on their work, and as you say these comments are not written for the writer, then perhaps they should take themselves out of the equation by either ignoring all comments altogether or by blocking comments and forcing people to discuss it out side of their view if they do not have the self control to ignore them.

But so long as the writer can and does read any comments made about their writings, then they will always be a part of it. This is even more valid if the person making those comments knows in advance that the writer will be reading what has been said about their work.

And yes the reader when making comments does have the obligation to discuss any dislikes or blatant errors with a large amount of respect and tact, regardless of if the writer will be reading them or not.

mei x: The idea of sharing one's work to strangers is to become a better writer.

I don't know if this is always true. Think about musicians. They don't play a set and then go, "OK, what do you think of that key change in the 8th measure? Should I leave that in?" For one thing, while fans are eminently qualified to tell artists what works on a gut level, they might not actually know what it takes to get there. Or the fans simply might not care about improving the skills of artists -- they might simply vote with their feet and reject the artist's future output.

I think there are appropriate forums for criticism and working to improve a writer's craft. I'm not sure that everyone in fandom wants to be or is qualified to be involved. I'm not sure why the whole of fandom is viewed as this training ground for writers. In many some areas it is, but not universally.

malic kenafin: Yes but musicians practice out side of live performances and do ask those very questions durring practice.

But this actually makes a good analogy of sorts. One could look at the sharing of their stories on a fandom site as a form of practice.

And I am not saying that all writers in a fandom are seeking to making writing a career. But some do intend just that. And those who are not then need to learn to understand that negative comments are not always a bad thing, no matter if they agree with it or not.

ranalore: The idea of any disccusion on one's writen word, good or bad, praising or critical, should very well be feedback. There is no should there. Such discussion can be feedback, but it doesn't have to be, and that was, I believe, Destina's point. If you as the writer can read such discussion and take something useful from it, that's wonderful, but that's not the point of the discussion. To reuse a metaphor I used in an essay about this very topic, story reviews are quite often like the fruit on my grandmother's mantel. Most of the year, it's wax fruit and there for decoration. At Christmas, it was always real fruit, but it was still there for decoration. You could eat the fruit at Christmas, but that wasn't the point of it, anymore than it was the point through the rest of the year when the fruit was of a sort you couldn't eat. And if you complained that the fruit was inedible the rest of the year, my grandmother would happily tell you that wasn't the point, nor would she change from wax to real fruit because you missed the point and wanted to eat what wasn't meant for eating.

penknife: I was with you until you got to #12, but I do really feel that the world doesn't divide neatly into "people who like public critique of their work" and "people who don't want to improve their writing." I think people totally have the right to discuss and critique stories in ways that are not aimed at the author. I am all for people feeling free to do that. I think it's interesting and often helpful as a way to talk about issues in the fandom or about writing techniques or about why stories do or don't work for people.

But I don't think having people publically critique one of my stories would be "worth its weight in gold" to me. I would rather get my crit in the beta process, where I can talk with my beta readers about what I meant to do and why I may not have pulled it off in the story and how to fix the story's problems. Reading public critique of one of my stories -- in a forum where I can't talk or ask questions, and at a point when the story is finished so I can't fix the problems -- would mainly be frustrating for me.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. I am completely on board with "it's not about the author, and it doesn't have to help them improve," and if someone wants to critique or discuss one of my stories, I have no problem with that. And I understand that some authors do find public critique valuable and helpful to them. I just think it's all right for authors to feel that it's not particularly helpful to them, if it's not.

nandamai: THANK YOU.

That's mostly what I'm here to say. But I'll ramble on anyway.

I came up, as a writer, in fiction writing classes, long before I'd ever heard of fanfic. The workshop process is very much ingrained in me, and I think a workshop is one of the best things a writer can ever do for herself. And in workshop, of course, the rule is almost always "the writer doesn't get to talk," though sometimes she is allowed to ask questions afterwards -- not to refute points or explain the story. I truly believe that this is the best way to do it, and the best way to teach a writer to differentiate between her being and her product. (And don't we all wish Anne Rice had learned this somewhere along the way?)

Now, granted, I'm talking about discussions that *are* for the writer, and the fic discussions you're talking about are for the readers. Fic discussion is more like a book group than than like a writing seminar. But I think that in a book group, it's even more important that the author not participate -- because, yes, the group is for readers, and the group is about the product, and if the author participates, the discussion is much more likely to veer toward 5 and 11 on your list.

Which is all a long way of saying that "but the author's feelings get hurt!" seems very much beside the point to me.

References

Retrieved from "https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=Fan_fiction_and_public_critique_(aka,_deja_vu)&oldid=2211462"